ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2024
Medial rectus insertion site in cases of acute acquired comitant esotropia associated with excessive digital device usage.
Article in Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Anterior horizontal rectus anatomy in children with concomitant strabismus.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the distance of the medial rectus muscle insertion to the limbus (DMIL) between patients with acute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) associated with excessive digital device usage (EDDU) and exotropic patients. STUDY
designRetrospective study.
methodsThe medical records of 72 eyes of 44 patients with EDDU were retrospectively analyzed. The DMIL was measured from the anterior part at the midpoint of the medial rectus muscle insertion into the anterior limbus using a caliper after dissecting the medial rectus muscle with two control sutures at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. The DMIL in the non-fixation eye was compared between 44 patients with AACE and 23 patients with exotropia.
resultsThe mean daily EDDU was 6.5 ± 3.1 h. The mean cycloplegic refractive errors (spherical equivalent: SE) were - 3.18 ± 2.52 diopters (D) OD and - 3.03 ± 2.42 D OS. The mean DMIL in the 72 eyes of 44 patients with AACE associated with EDDU was 4.30 ± 0.66 mm. The difference in DMIL of non-fixation eyes between 44 AACE patients and 23 exotropic patients was significant (4.28 ± 0.65 mm vs. 5.28 ± 0.50 mm, p < 0.0001). However, the SE in 44 non-dominant eyes of AACE was - 3.08 ± 2.56 D, significantly stronger than - 1.22 ± 1.93 D in the 23 exotropic eyes (p = 0.008).
conclusionDMIL in patients with AACE associated with EDDU was significantly shorter. This anatomical anomaly may be an etiology of AACE associated with EDDU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39215882What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.